They'll all generally wear the heaviest armor they can carry and afford because there's no reason not to.
Indeed, and this has always bugged me about D&D. There has never been any incentive to not simply equip the best weapon, best armour, and best shield that you can afford, aside from RP flavour - and this often results in a sub-optimal build, which tends to result in people not doing it (okay, why are you using a buckler and not a tower shield again? But I can run just as fast, and move just as quickly, with a scutum, it doesn't say anything about cumbersome shields here!).
Anyway, the main thing I really don't like about this new version so far is the crap-ton of ability score increases that characters are bombarded with as they level up. You're going to end up with characters having strength and dexterity scores well in the 20s by the time they hit level 12. If a strength of 18 was supposed to be world champion bodybuilder standard, a level 12 character is going to make Mr Universe look like a wimp.
They'll all generally wear the heaviest armor they can carry and afford because there's no reason not to.
Indeed, and this has always bugged me about D&D. There has never been any incentive to not simply equip the best weapon, best armour, and best shield that you can afford, aside from RP flavour - and this often results in a sub-optimal build, which tends to result in people not doing it (okay, why are you using a buckler and not a tower shield again? But I can run just as fast, and move just as quickly, with a scutum, it doesn't say anything about cumbersome shields here!).
Anyway, the main thing I really don't like about this new version so far is the crap-ton of ability score increases that characters are bombarded with as they level up. You're going to end up with characters having strength and dexterity scores well in the 20s by the time they hit level 12. If a strength of 18 was supposed to be world champion bodybuilder standard, a level 12 character is going to make Mr Universe look like a wimp.
Actually, no. Ability scores are capped at 20, at least for the purposes of those bonuses. So at worst, you'll have all 20s, but more likely you'll have a few 20s and the rest being more or less normal.
They'll all generally wear the heaviest armor they can carry and afford because there's no reason not to.
Anyway, the main thing I really don't like about this new version so far is the crap-ton of ability score increases that characters are bombarded with as they level up. You're going to end up with characters having strength and dexterity scores well in the 20s by the time they hit level 12. If a strength of 18 was supposed to be world champion bodybuilder standard, a level 12 character is going to make Mr Universe look like a wimp.
Well... Lv. 12 is like absurdly strong. In 5th Edition, D&D finally returned to its senses, and Lv. 20 is REALLY the ultimate cap for Level. At least in the playtest Asmodeus was a Lv. 20 creature. So, a Lv. 12 character would be one of top 5 legendary heroes of all time.
Also, I prefere much more a low level and grounded Campaign Setting. That's how it often occurs in legends, mythology and literature. If I would rate by level characters from legends that I like and know well, it would be something like this:
Nevertheless with the group that you play D&D, you could always limit Ability increasing. Instead, characters would have to opt exclusively for a Feat when they should gain ability increases. Simple solved.
Indeed, and this has always bugged me about D&D. There has never been any incentive to not simply equip the best weapon, best armour, and best shield that you can afford, aside from RP flavour - and this often results in a sub-optimal build, which tends to result in people not doing it (okay, why are you using a buckler and not a tower shield again? But I can run just as fast, and move just as quickly, with a scutum, it doesn't say anything about cumbersome shields here!).
Why should there be an incentive to not use the best things available? If you have a DM that lets you get away with "I wear only my ornate dress to the Fire Giant lair because my station demands it" without cutting you to shreds, something's off. You're going up against a lot of things that want to *murder* you, anyone putting personal preference for looks over utility is in the wrong line of work. If you want armour to look a certain way, get the Glamered enchantment. It can look like a T-shirt if you'd like. In 3.5, lighter armour allows for higher dexterity bonuses and lower armour check penalties, making it attractive to rogues and anyone who values his dexterity based skills. Even in 5th, Medium and Heavy armour limit your dexterity bonus, some heavy armours can't even be worn without a Strength requirement, meaning most characters will still not run around in full plate with tower shields. (Nitpick on your tower shield comment, they give a -2 to attack and a hefty -10 on all dexterity related skills, making it quite different from the buckler, which gives a -1 on those skills and no other penalty.)
Anyway, the main thing I really don't like about this new version so far is the crap-ton of ability score increases that characters are bombarded with as they level up. You're going to end up with characters having strength and dexterity scores well in the 20s by the time they hit level 12. If a strength of 18 was supposed to be world champion bodybuilder standard, a level 12 character is going to make Mr Universe look like a wimp.
You really don't get that many. The fighter does, in place of the 10 bonus feats he got in 3rd Edition. By level 20, he gets seven +1 stat increases. The Rogue gets six, the wizard five. Any and every class got five in 3.5 so two more really won't break the bank. Aside from that, the rules specificly state no stat can be increased over 20. (I'd houserule that this is before racial modifiers, personally). This means that, unless you had three 18's (basicly making you Khan Noonien Singh), you're not going to max out your stats anytime soon. If using a normal point-buy, you'll probably get a single 20 on a stat out of it, which is fair considering you'll be a big time hero by then. A Girdle of Giant Strength is more unbalancing than this.
If anything, I see 5th Ed nerfing all powergaming. Limiting stat gains, only giving out feats if you don't increase your stats, capping out your max base attack bonus at +6, giving out bonus attacks to very few classes, allowing casters to cast far fewer spells (a single level 8 and level 9 spell at maximum level as opposed to four of each in 3.5ed, before stat bonuses), no stat stacking of any kind. Meanwhile, roleplaying is encouraged more by incorporating the background system and the descriptions of each class mentioning a few off beat character concepts to have people think outside the box a bit more (for example, the new paladin write up speaks of a stealthed dwarven avenger hunting down orcs from the shadows). The only real problem I see is that a lot of damage output is nerfed while hitpoint accumulation remains the same. This could lead to long slogging matches, whittling down the enemy's health round by round. Haven't seen it in action though, so no idea if that's the case.
Personally, I like the ridiculous powergaming of 3rd Edition. Have them take down two red dragons if one can't stop them, what do I care? As long as everyone's having fun. But anyone who thinks 5th Ed has giving in to munchkins and powergaming has really not been reading the rules.
Well... Lv. 12 is like absurdly strong. In 5th Edition, D&D finally returned to its senses, and Lv. 20 is REALLY the ultimate cap for Level. At least in the playtest Asmodeus was a Lv. 20 creature. So, a Lv. 12 character would be one of top 5 legendary heroes of all time.
If that was the case ten it'd work, except recent versions of D&D have been geared for fast advancement, and it doesn't take as long as it should to reach level 12.
Though in fairness, I don't know what the final XP rewards are like, so I don't know how quickly characters will advance. Besides, I could always tweak them if I run my own campaign.
All of this discussion pretty much convinces me that 3e and up have pretty much ceded the fight to the munchkins.
(Squire, I don't mean to pick on you, I understand you're not in favor of it; I'm talking about the whole conversation about the rules - your post was just the most recent and easiest to quote.)
There's a difference between being a "munchkin" and "wanting to be useful to your party in a fight". Now could my 2E fighter run around in studded leather and a buckler? Absolutely. Would he be more useful to the group in platemail and a tower shield? Absolutely. Is there any mechanical benefit to the light armor? 99 times out of 100 no, unless the campaign requires you to do a lot of swimming.
In 3e and up, you could absolutely get some benefit out of being a lightly armored fighter, even if that benefit was a simple as being able to use more of your dex bonus, or not getting certain skills penalized.
Of course that opens things up to the kind of abominations that lurk in the WotC CharOp forums, particularly after a few sourcebooks have come out and the subtle power creep has ceased to be subtle. To be honest though, my experience is characters like that don't exist outside of forum thought exercises or campaigns specifically based around the notion of power builds.
Between the various kits, non-weapon proficiencies, optional rules, house rules and, y'know, role-playing there's plenty of reasons to play a high-DEX lightly-armored fighter in 2e.
I dunno...I don't like relying on house rules, because it's the kind of thing that can easily change from game to game. One GM might rule that walking through the desert in full harness is going to result in fortitude saves every half hour or you collapse from heat exhaustion, while another can just as easily rule that it's no problem at all as long as you sprinkle water over yourself every few minutes.
I'd rather have such things at least mentioned in the rules, so at least players are encouraged to be ready for the fact that that might happen, rather than simply having it thrown at them, which is likely to make them resent the GM, and not want to play anymore.
@subtledoctor What you describe is what's in the Basic document, though. There are numerous instances where it says "Your DM may allow you to do this instead", but as far as synergy is concerned, the rules very explicitly state that there's no way to stack advantages or disadvantages, your ability scores are capped at 20, and two doublings does not equal a tripling.
Then again, if what you're comfortable with is 2e's system and you don't want to learn something new, then no one can change your mind. But 5e is actually a lot more balanced and prevents a lot more power creep than the two editions that preceded it. And it's still interesting and fun to build characters and play through encounters (even and especially encounters that have nothing to do with combat, because you don't have to look up a bunch of secondary rules to find out if you can pick-pocket the key from the guard).
What I noticed when I was reading it was that the rules all stem from three basic questions: - Am I proficient in whatever it is I'm trying to do - Do I have advantage - What ability score am I using
Outside of those questions, the game plays pretty much like it did when you were eight. Players have more tools to play with, but for the most part those tools are extensions of the three basic questions. If you're using your character's toolbox (i.e. character sheet), the rules give you everything you need to do the things described on your sheet. If you're stepping outside of your toolbox to try something creative, the three basic questions give the DM and players a streamlined way to make an ad hoc ruling about what happens.
In 3e and up, you could absolutely get some benefit out of being a lightly armored fighter, even if that benefit was a simple as being able to use more of your dex bonus, or not getting certain skills penalized.
Between the various kits, non-weapon proficiencies, optional rules, house rules and, y'know, role-playing ("there's a moat/lake/river between you and the cave entrance, looks like you're swimming... ") there's plenty of reasons to play a high-DEX lightly-armored fighter in 2e. My only current exposure is via video games like BG. I tend to mod every rule I don't like with no heed to any kind of pure game-playing experience. Currently I'm loving the FPPS mod, which really presents viable reasons for wearing any kind of armor, within the 2e framework (i.e. within the BG game engine).
Yeah, if you buy a shitload of sourcebooks, you *might* find a combination of options that makes a light armor/high dex fighter make sense. But every edition (except 4e, which used a radically different class model) since then has made those options viable straight out of the PHB. As someone who's playing a straight Temple of Elemental Evil dungeon crawl with only the PHB options, I can tell you that straying from the core "build" just makes you a burden to the group.
I don't really see your point though? 3e and later was bad because they gave you options at the start, but 2e's great because they buried these options in a bunch of other books?
5e seems to favor more "average" rolls, actually. The game I'm in right now, everyone is using the standard array where 15 is the highest for any stat, and so far I don't feel crippled.
Ideally you want your stats to mean something, and that's something that 2e struggled with--below a certain number, depending on the ability score, you might be stuck with "high" scores that feel like "average" scores, and that's not a good feeling for a player.
3e shifted things to a more linear progression, so that no matter what ability score it was, a high score felt like a high score. Where 3e fell short was removing the caps--so if a high score felt high, then a really high score must feel even higher, which is where you encounter the video game-like power gaming that resulted in a series of power-creep-heavy splat books. I couldn't speak to how 4e addressed that curve, but on the outside it seemed like the effort was placed more on making ability scores not matter quite so much when calculating things like damage and skills. So you'd have high scores offering linear bonuses, but compared with your character's base damage dice, they didn't bring a whole lot to the table.
5e reinstates the ability cap, which already helps a lot; and then it also helps to ensure that whatever ability bonus you get is felt meaningfully across your character sheet, but not so meaningfully that you feel the need to min-max. My wizard with a high dexterity (for being an elf) and a criminal background makes a great locksmith, but it feels more like an extension of his natural ability than something I've decided to focus on. And even at higher levels, a difficult lock won't be an instant success.
Based solely on the Basic rules, the highest bonus you could have for a skill is 5 (for 20 in the ability score) + 6 (for the level 20 proficiency bonus) = +11. The thief has a special ability that lets them double their proficiency bonus with two skills, but even there the highest you could achieve is +17. For a "Master" lock with a DC of 30, my wizard would need to roll a 19 to pick it; a thief with the same ability scores would still need a 13, which provides interesting challenges to high level characters.
To put that in perspective, in 3e at level 20 you could have a total of 8 (for a 26 in the ability score, resulting from a magic item granting +6 to that stat) + 23 (for having maximum skill ranks in the specific skill) = +31. If your character has Skill Focus and magic items that specifically improve that skill, it gets even higher. For a "Master" lock with a DC of 30, I would need to roll a natural 1 AND have a particularly vengeful DM in order to not pick that lock on the first try.
That's on the high end of the spectrum, though. Even a low-stat character isn't crippled by their ability scores. Let's say you have a Charisma of 8 and no proficiency with Persuasion. Throughout the game you'll be stuck with a -1 penalty to your check; but because the high-Charisma character is more or less capped at +11, the DM has no need to pump up the skill challenges to accommodate them--meaning that your -1 still might allow you to talk your way out of trouble with the local guards, even if your more diplomatic friend might get better results.
Why should there be an incentive to not use the best things available?
Well, if you're going to have equipment lists with lots of items, everything needs to have its place, otherwise there's no point having anything other than "full harness" and "cheap armour that get superceded as soon as you can afford sth better". At least if speed/dexterity plays a part, there is an incentive for skirmisher types to wear lighter armour.
I was more getting at the medium armours, certain weapons, and things like small shields (which, literally, have no purpose whatsoever, unless you have a GM who will impose penalties for trying to run with a heater shield). Unless you have Weapon Finesse, using a shortsword gives you no benefit over a longsword, etc. As for armour, there is no reason to wear mail, or a half harness, when you can afford a full harness, meaning there were three types of armours that actually got used: leather for rogues, rangers and druids; mail shirts for bards; and full plate for everybody else except wizards.
In 3.5, lighter armour allows for higher dexterity bonuses and lower armour check penalties, making it attractive to rogues and anyone who values his dexterity based skills.
True, but in D&D's AC system, that doesn't make much of a difference for anybody except rogues and rangers. Even then, pumping your stealth skill can easily negate the stealth penalty. I'm not saying leather armour should be better (it shouldn't!), but it should have other benefits that generally aren't really accounted for in D&D.
Even in 5th, Medium and Heavy armour limit your dexterity bonus, some heavy armours can't even be worn without a Strength requirement, meaning most characters will still not run around in full plate with tower shields.
I didn't see that (I've only really glanced at the PDF since my local RPG shop has already run out of hard copies - shows how much people loved 4e when 5e was in such high demand! ), but that's good if that's true. In fact I think strength requirements was one of the things I missed from 3rd edition.
(Nitpick on your tower shield comment, they give a -2 to attack and a hefty -10 on all dexterity related skills, making it quite different from the buckler, which gives a -1 on those skills and no other penalty.)
I was more talking about them in 3rd edition, which didn't give the -2 attack. It did have skill penalties, but again, unless you're somebody who uses those skills, that doesn't matter a great deal.
You really don't get that many. The fighter does, in place of the 10 bonus feats he got in 3rd Edition. By level 20, he gets seven +1 stat increases. The Rogue gets six, the wizard five. Any and every class got five in 3.5 so two more really won't break the bank. Aside from that, the rules specificly state no stat can be increased over 20.
Fair point, although I'm more concerned about getting them so early on. It's probably just a personal preference, but I like to run a more gritty kind of game where characters don't become crazy-powerful like they did in 3.x, and a dozen goblins can still make a high level party think "uh...we may be a bit outnumbered here! Clever plan, anybody?" (as opposed to "Pah! Only goblins?") which is why I prefer Warhammer FRP now.
The only real problem I see is that a lot of damage output is nerfed while hitpoint accumulation remains the same. This could lead to long slogging matches, whittling down the enemy's health round by round. Haven't seen it in action though, so no idea if that's the case.
Yes, this is a problem. They did change the whole hitpoint-bloat thing in an early version of the playtest by reducing HP per level, but too many people railed against it, so they obviously went back to the old style. I do like that they've changed the AB increases, though, so that even at higher levels, it's actually possible for characters to miss sometimes.
The whole idea of this was "hit chance stays the same, but damage potential is what changes as you level up". It could work, I dunno...I'll have to see it played.
Also...DRUGAR!!! How the devil are you?? XD (you are Drugar Deathbringer from PBG, right? If not, ignore me. )
In 2E, it didn't matter if your Dex was 3 or 18, you'd always wear the heaviest armor you could carry. Personally, I've never played a 2E game that wasn't 4d6 drop lowest for stat rolls. As for limiting yourself, well given some of the broken kits in 2E (hello Complete Book of Elves) and just flat-out weird attempts at customization (Skills & Powers let you create characters who could lift more than they could carry), then I can respect the call by my DM. 2E is what it is, and that's a game still feels slightly rooted in a more remorseless, adversarial period in our hobby.
What 3E and later have brought to the game, in my mind, is the idea that you're creating heroes, and that the game should give you the option to feel like someone who stands apart from the norm. Of course people are going to take advantage of that elevated power level, but if it bothers you, don't play with them. I've personally walked away games where it felt like the other players were almost bullying the group with their broken characters. At the same time, if I walk up to the table with a character I want to play
What 3E and later have brought to the game, in my mind, is the idea that you're creating heroes, and that the game should give you the option to feel like someone who stands apart from the norm. Of course people are going to take advantage of that elevated power level, but if it bothers you, don't play with them.
That's it exactly. In D&D3e, you create heroes. You're a hero from the moment you roll up ability scores. I personally don't like that, because I believe heroic status has to be earned, but...well, horses for courses, I suppose. As I said previously, different people want different things from an RPG.
The problems come when the two extremes meet; powergamers don't like hardcore roleplayers because they insist on things like tracking ammunition, food, etc - things that powergamers consider "micromanagement" - and roleplayers don't like powergamers because they have a tendency to turn a roleplayer's well thought out and interesting character into a mere spectator to their own character's super power.
Ideally, a game system should allow for both styles of play, so that each group can play the game that they want to, and it's easier to remove rules that are there than it is to add ones that aren't there. I probably need to play a game of 5e with the full PHB to really make up my mind, but at the end of the day, if I don't like it, there are other RPG systems I can play. It's not as if I need D&D in my life.
What 3E and later have brought to the game, in my mind, is the idea that you're creating heroes, and that the game should give you the option to feel like someone who stands apart from the norm. Of course people are going to take advantage of that elevated power level, but if it bothers you, don't play with them.
That's it exactly. In D&D3e, you create heroes. You're a hero from the moment you roll up ability scores. I personally don't like that, because I believe heroic status has to be earned, but...well, horses for courses, I suppose. As I said previously, different people want different things from an RPG.
The problems come when the two extremes meet; powergamers don't like hardcore roleplayers because they insist on things like tracking ammunition, food, etc - things that powergamers consider "micromanagement" - and roleplayers don't like powergamers because they have a tendency to turn a roleplayer's well thought out and interesting character into a mere spectator to their own character's super power.
Ideally, a game system should allow for both styles of play, so that each group can play the game that they want to, and it's easier to remove rules that are there than it is to add ones that aren't there. I probably need to play a game of 5e with the full PHB to really make up my mind, but at the end of the day, if I don't like it, there are other RPG systems I can play. It's not as if I need D&D in my life.
The pacing is a bit slower, but it should give you an idea of how 5e plays, in comparison to previous editions.
(EDIT: We're using the Basic Rules PDF only, and a lot of us are learning as we go; so this also should demonstrate how much easier 5e is to learn than 3e, 4e, or 2e.)
2E's biggest problem to me was always the demi-human level limit, and I'm glad IE doesn't support this, nor any modder (I would have Saerileth level hatred.)
Could you imagine: I am Mazzy Fentan. Pay no attention to the fact that I'm level 4 and can never go beyond that, I am a valiant servant of Justice and... where are you going! Your grace, come back!
What genius thought level limits were a good idea?
There's a difference between being a "munchkin" and "wanting to be useful to your party in a fight". Now could my 2E fighter run around in studded leather and a buckler? Absolutely. Would he be more useful to the group in platemail and a tower shield? Absolutely
Indeed. This is especially important for Fighters, as they are always the least powerful/useful class.
Anyway, the main thing I really don't like about this new version so far is the crap-ton of ability score increases that characters are bombarded with as they level up. You're going to end up with characters having strength and dexterity scores well in the 20s by the time they hit level 12. If a strength of 18 was supposed to be world champion bodybuilder standard, a level 12 character is going to make Mr Universe look like a wimp.
Actually, no. Ability scores are capped at 20, at least for the purposes of those bonuses. So at worst, you'll have all 20s, but more likely you'll have a few 20s and the rest being more or less normal.
There's also the fact that Feats cost "ability score increases" to buy. So if you want to be able to do anything different or a unique characterisation, then you'll have to pay for it.
@Dee I'm not criticizing 5e for this, rather the broader and earlier evolution from 2e to 3e to 4e, where there is more emphasis on combat and DPS and 'optimal builds' - acknowledged and enabled by the rules themselves - rather than emphasis on noncombat situations and creativity.
I find this viewpoint faulty. To me, 3rd Ed definitely tried to bring non-combat situations into the game a lot more than previous versions, where it just sort of existed on the side of the combat/dungeoneering. I will by no means try to that 3rd Ed succeeded particularly well at it, because I don't think they did, but they certainly attempted to make it play a bigger part of the game mechanics than it had in previous editions.
I find this viewpoint faulty. To me, 3rd Ed definitely tried to bring non-combat situations into the game a lot more than previous versions, where it just sort of existed on the side of the combat/dungeoneering.
It did. 2e had optional non-combat proficiencies, but they didn't play a big part in the game. There was nothing, for example, that really let the bard do what he did. Charisma was nothing more than a way of gaining followers (and hence became the universal dump stat for all except bards and paladins), so 3e did good there.
What genius thought level limits were a good idea?
I believe that was done as a way to balance humans, making them a viable choice. The demi-human races gave PCs a lot of bonuses and extra stuff, but humans had nothing, so 2e made the main advantage of the human be that they can be any class, and can advance to any level within any class. 3e changed that with extra skills and feats.
3e had a lot of good ideas, and it could have been a good system. It still can be, depending on the players and the GM.
Also...DRUGAR!!! How the devil are you?? XD (you are Drugar Deathbringer from PBG, right? If not, ignore me. )
Squuuiiiirreeeee! Indeed I am. I was wondering if it was you, considering Squire's a more usual nickname than Drugar. Been well, forumhopping and engaging in roleplaying games where I am wont to punch the occasional face in with a mailed gauntlet. Same old, same old. You?
IRT Thread
Uh...5th Edition looks great y'all! (Putting my on-topic-staying skills at work here people)
Trying my best to answer without derailing: yeah, I could do with a more unique monicker. I've been mostly looking forward to Elite: Dangerous (which I've backed, along with several other games), playing Rise of Flight, and roleplaying bowmen in various roleplaying games, including a certain Neverwinter Nights 2 server.
Back on topic: I've had the chance to look through the document in a bit more depth. I like what they've done with the classes, adding archetypes that help develop the class in different ways. I know people can create these archetypes themselves, but this might encourage people to see the classes in different ways to what they're likely used to. For example, there's no reason at all why a fighter can't be a bowman, or a crossbow sniper, or sth similar. Nothing in the rules states that he has to harness up and stand at the front with a big shield...that's what clerics are for! (j/k )
What 3E and later have brought to the game, in my mind, is the idea that you're creating heroes, and that the game should give you the option to feel like someone who stands apart from the norm. Of course people are going to take advantage of that elevated power level, but if it bothers you, don't play with them.
That's it exactly. In D&D3e, you create heroes. You're a hero from the moment you roll up ability scores. I personally don't like that, because I believe heroic status has to be earned, but...well, horses for courses, I suppose. As I said previously, different people want different things from an RPG.
Absolutely, and it depends on the game you want. From what I've seen of 5e I could happily model, say Conan circa "Tower of the Elephant" at first level. With 2e, I'd be more likely to get something along the lines of Pippin circa "Fellowship of the Ring". It depends on what you want out of your game, but since I don't get to game as much as I used to these days, I'd rather go for a character who's already awesome rather than one who has to grow into his awesome.
If your character is always awesome, there isn't much of a character arc, to be honest. Even Conan started as a thief before he became a fighter.
Exactly. I'd rather have the journey to heroism.
"Six months ago you were a farm boy who'd never so much as held a sword, and now you command the town garrison! Knights bow to you, when six months ago they'd have swatted you aside without so much as an apology! SIx months ago you'd have ran from a goblin. Now goblins run from you!"
sounds so much more impressive, to me, than:
"Six months ago, you were a hero. Now you're...a slightly better hero! You used to vanquish goblins single-handedly, but now you vanquish goblin champions!"
But again, it's horses for courses. I play RPGs because I want to enjoy the journey. I want to start from humble beginnings and grow into something greater. I don't want to start as Aragorn and eventually become Gandalf, I want to start as Bob the Hunter/Farmer/Boatman/Whatever and work my way up to becoming Aragorn - and even then, Aragorn is the ultimate destination, and one I may never reach. And that's fine, because to me, the fun is in the journey.
Speaking of humble beginnings, I also really like the backgrounds feature. I mean, really, a lot. In fact this could be the one feature which sells this game to me. I just hope they don't go all 3rd edition on us, and cram an unnecessary amount of crazy backgrounds into splat-books just to keep us buying them. I appreciate that they need to make money, so they need to keep printing new books, but surely this can be better served by making quality adventures, and epic campaigns that span several volumes (kind of like Paizo's Adventure Path books). That'd be far more likely to make me part with my hard-earned cash than the Hero's Guide IV which contains new backgrounds such as Demon Scarred, Troll Blooded, and Dragonborn Angel of Superheroic Destiny.
Comments
Anyway, the main thing I really don't like about this new version so far is the crap-ton of ability score increases that characters are bombarded with as they level up. You're going to end up with characters having strength and dexterity scores well in the 20s by the time they hit level 12. If a strength of 18 was supposed to be world champion bodybuilder standard, a level 12 character is going to make Mr Universe look like a wimp.
Also, I prefere much more a low level and grounded Campaign Setting. That's how it often occurs in legends, mythology and literature. If I would rate by level characters from legends that I like and know well, it would be something like this:
20-Heracles (Greek Mythology)
14-Merlim (Arthurian Legends)
13-Sigfried (Norse Mythology)
12-Sauron (Middle-Earth)
10-Achilles (Greek Mythology)
9-Sir Lancelot (Arthurian Legends)
9-Fëanor (Middle-Earth)
9-Fingolfin (Middle-Earth)
8-Sir Gawain (Arthurian Legends)
7-Gandalf (Middle-Earth)
7-Sigmund (Norse Mythology)
6-King Arthur (Arthurian Legends)
5-Aragorn (Middle-Earth)
4-Legolas (Middle-Earth)
4-Sir Percival (Arthurian Legends)
Nevertheless with the group that you play D&D, you could always limit Ability increasing. Instead, characters would have to opt exclusively for a Feat when they should gain ability increases. Simple solved.
Although, I totally agree. Merlin would totally kick Gandalfs pointy hatted but.
In 3.5, lighter armour allows for higher dexterity bonuses and lower armour check penalties, making it attractive to rogues and anyone who values his dexterity based skills. Even in 5th, Medium and Heavy armour limit your dexterity bonus, some heavy armours can't even be worn without a Strength requirement, meaning most characters will still not run around in full plate with tower shields.
(Nitpick on your tower shield comment, they give a -2 to attack and a hefty -10 on all dexterity related skills, making it quite different from the buckler, which gives a -1 on those skills and no other penalty.) You really don't get that many. The fighter does, in place of the 10 bonus feats he got in 3rd Edition. By level 20, he gets seven +1 stat increases. The Rogue gets six, the wizard five. Any and every class got five in 3.5 so two more really won't break the bank. Aside from that, the rules specificly state no stat can be increased over 20. (I'd houserule that this is before racial modifiers, personally).
This means that, unless you had three 18's (basicly making you Khan Noonien Singh), you're not going to max out your stats anytime soon. If using a normal point-buy, you'll probably get a single 20 on a stat out of it, which is fair considering you'll be a big time hero by then. A Girdle of Giant Strength is more unbalancing than this.
If anything, I see 5th Ed nerfing all powergaming. Limiting stat gains, only giving out feats if you don't increase your stats, capping out your max base attack bonus at +6, giving out bonus attacks to very few classes, allowing casters to cast far fewer spells (a single level 8 and level 9 spell at maximum level as opposed to four of each in 3.5ed, before stat bonuses), no stat stacking of any kind.
Meanwhile, roleplaying is encouraged more by incorporating the background system and the descriptions of each class mentioning a few off beat character concepts to have people think outside the box a bit more (for example, the new paladin write up speaks of a stealthed dwarven avenger hunting down orcs from the shadows).
The only real problem I see is that a lot of damage output is nerfed while hitpoint accumulation remains the same. This could lead to long slogging matches, whittling down the enemy's health round by round. Haven't seen it in action though, so no idea if that's the case.
Personally, I like the ridiculous powergaming of 3rd Edition. Have them take down two red dragons if one can't stop them, what do I care? As long as everyone's having fun. But anyone who thinks 5th Ed has giving in to munchkins and powergaming has really not been reading the rules.
Though in fairness, I don't know what the final XP rewards are like, so I don't know how quickly characters will advance. Besides, I could always tweak them if I run my own campaign.
In 3e and up, you could absolutely get some benefit out of being a lightly armored fighter, even if that benefit was a simple as being able to use more of your dex bonus, or not getting certain skills penalized.
Of course that opens things up to the kind of abominations that lurk in the WotC CharOp forums, particularly after a few sourcebooks have come out and the subtle power creep has ceased to be subtle. To be honest though, my experience is characters like that don't exist outside of forum thought exercises or campaigns specifically based around the notion of power builds.
I'd rather have such things at least mentioned in the rules, so at least players are encouraged to be ready for the fact that that might happen, rather than simply having it thrown at them, which is likely to make them resent the GM, and not want to play anymore.
Then again, if what you're comfortable with is 2e's system and you don't want to learn something new, then no one can change your mind. But 5e is actually a lot more balanced and prevents a lot more power creep than the two editions that preceded it. And it's still interesting and fun to build characters and play through encounters (even and especially encounters that have nothing to do with combat, because you don't have to look up a bunch of secondary rules to find out if you can pick-pocket the key from the guard).
- Am I proficient in whatever it is I'm trying to do
- Do I have advantage
- What ability score am I using
Outside of those questions, the game plays pretty much like it did when you were eight. Players have more tools to play with, but for the most part those tools are extensions of the three basic questions. If you're using your character's toolbox (i.e. character sheet), the rules give you everything you need to do the things described on your sheet. If you're stepping outside of your toolbox to try something creative, the three basic questions give the DM and players a streamlined way to make an ad hoc ruling about what happens.
I don't really see your point though? 3e and later was bad because they gave you options at the start, but 2e's great because they buried these options in a bunch of other books?
Ideally you want your stats to mean something, and that's something that 2e struggled with--below a certain number, depending on the ability score, you might be stuck with "high" scores that feel like "average" scores, and that's not a good feeling for a player.
3e shifted things to a more linear progression, so that no matter what ability score it was, a high score felt like a high score. Where 3e fell short was removing the caps--so if a high score felt high, then a really high score must feel even higher, which is where you encounter the video game-like power gaming that resulted in a series of power-creep-heavy splat books. I couldn't speak to how 4e addressed that curve, but on the outside it seemed like the effort was placed more on making ability scores not matter quite so much when calculating things like damage and skills. So you'd have high scores offering linear bonuses, but compared with your character's base damage dice, they didn't bring a whole lot to the table.
5e reinstates the ability cap, which already helps a lot; and then it also helps to ensure that whatever ability bonus you get is felt meaningfully across your character sheet, but not so meaningfully that you feel the need to min-max. My wizard with a high dexterity (for being an elf) and a criminal background makes a great locksmith, but it feels more like an extension of his natural ability than something I've decided to focus on. And even at higher levels, a difficult lock won't be an instant success.
Based solely on the Basic rules, the highest bonus you could have for a skill is 5 (for 20 in the ability score) + 6 (for the level 20 proficiency bonus) = +11. The thief has a special ability that lets them double their proficiency bonus with two skills, but even there the highest you could achieve is +17. For a "Master" lock with a DC of 30, my wizard would need to roll a 19 to pick it; a thief with the same ability scores would still need a 13, which provides interesting challenges to high level characters.
To put that in perspective, in 3e at level 20 you could have a total of 8 (for a 26 in the ability score, resulting from a magic item granting +6 to that stat) + 23 (for having maximum skill ranks in the specific skill) = +31. If your character has Skill Focus and magic items that specifically improve that skill, it gets even higher. For a "Master" lock with a DC of 30, I would need to roll a natural 1 AND have a particularly vengeful DM in order to not pick that lock on the first try.
That's on the high end of the spectrum, though. Even a low-stat character isn't crippled by their ability scores. Let's say you have a Charisma of 8 and no proficiency with Persuasion. Throughout the game you'll be stuck with a -1 penalty to your check; but because the high-Charisma character is more or less capped at +11, the DM has no need to pump up the skill challenges to accommodate them--meaning that your -1 still might allow you to talk your way out of trouble with the local guards, even if your more diplomatic friend might get better results.
I was more getting at the medium armours, certain weapons, and things like small shields (which, literally, have no purpose whatsoever, unless you have a GM who will impose penalties for trying to run with a heater shield). Unless you have Weapon Finesse, using a shortsword gives you no benefit over a longsword, etc. As for armour, there is no reason to wear mail, or a half harness, when you can afford a full harness, meaning there were three types of armours that actually got used: leather for rogues, rangers and druids; mail shirts for bards; and full plate for everybody else except wizards. True, but in D&D's AC system, that doesn't make much of a difference for anybody except rogues and rangers. Even then, pumping your stealth skill can easily negate the stealth penalty. I'm not saying leather armour should be better (it shouldn't!), but it should have other benefits that generally aren't really accounted for in D&D. I didn't see that (I've only really glanced at the PDF since my local RPG shop has already run out of hard copies - shows how much people loved 4e when 5e was in such high demand!
The whole idea of this was "hit chance stays the same, but damage potential is what changes as you level up". It could work, I dunno...I'll have to see it played.
Also...DRUGAR!!! How the devil are you?? XD (you are Drugar Deathbringer from PBG, right? If not, ignore me.
What 3E and later have brought to the game, in my mind, is the idea that you're creating heroes, and that the game should give you the option to feel like someone who stands apart from the norm. Of course people are going to take advantage of that elevated power level, but if it bothers you, don't play with them. I've personally walked away games where it felt like the other players were almost bullying the group with their broken characters. At the same time, if I walk up to the table with a character I want to play
The problems come when the two extremes meet; powergamers don't like hardcore roleplayers because they insist on things like tracking ammunition, food, etc - things that powergamers consider "micromanagement" - and roleplayers don't like powergamers because they have a tendency to turn a roleplayer's well thought out and interesting character into a mere spectator to their own character's super power.
Ideally, a game system should allow for both styles of play, so that each group can play the game that they want to, and it's easier to remove rules that are there than it is to add ones that aren't there. I probably need to play a game of 5e with the full PHB to really make up my mind, but at the end of the day, if I don't like it, there are other RPG systems I can play. It's not as if I need D&D in my life.
The pacing is a bit slower, but it should give you an idea of how 5e plays, in comparison to previous editions.
(EDIT: We're using the Basic Rules PDF only, and a lot of us are learning as we go; so this also should demonstrate how much easier 5e is to learn than 3e, 4e, or 2e.)
Could you imagine: I am Mazzy Fentan. Pay no attention to the fact that I'm level 4 and can never go beyond that, I am a valiant servant of Justice and... where are you going! Your grace, come back!
What genius thought level limits were a good idea?
3e had a lot of good ideas, and it could have been a good system. It still can be, depending on the players and the GM.
Indeed I am. I was wondering if it was you, considering Squire's a more usual nickname than Drugar.
Been well, forumhopping and engaging in roleplaying games where I am wont to punch the occasional face in with a mailed gauntlet. Same old, same old.
You?
IRT Thread
Uh...5th Edition looks great y'all!
(Putting my on-topic-staying skills at work here people)
Back on topic: I've had the chance to look through the document in a bit more depth. I like what they've done with the classes, adding archetypes that help develop the class in different ways. I know people can create these archetypes themselves, but this might encourage people to see the classes in different ways to what they're likely used to. For example, there's no reason at all why a fighter can't be a bowman, or a crossbow sniper, or sth similar. Nothing in the rules states that he has to harness up and stand at the front with a big shield...that's what clerics are for! (j/k
"Six months ago you were a farm boy who'd never so much as held a sword, and now you command the town garrison! Knights bow to you, when six months ago they'd have swatted you aside without so much as an apology! SIx months ago you'd have ran from a goblin. Now goblins run from you!"
sounds so much more impressive, to me, than:
"Six months ago, you were a hero. Now you're...a slightly better hero! You used to vanquish goblins single-handedly, but now you vanquish goblin champions!"
But again, it's horses for courses. I play RPGs because I want to enjoy the journey. I want to start from humble beginnings and grow into something greater. I don't want to start as Aragorn and eventually become Gandalf, I want to start as Bob the Hunter/Farmer/Boatman/Whatever and work my way up to becoming Aragorn - and even then, Aragorn is the ultimate destination, and one I may never reach. And that's fine, because to me, the fun is in the journey.
Speaking of humble beginnings, I also really like the backgrounds feature. I mean, really, a lot. In fact this could be the one feature which sells this game to me. I just hope they don't go all 3rd edition on us, and cram an unnecessary amount of crazy backgrounds into splat-books just to keep us buying them. I appreciate that they need to make money, so they need to keep printing new books, but surely this can be better served by making quality adventures, and epic campaigns that span several volumes (kind of like Paizo's Adventure Path books). That'd be far more likely to make me part with my hard-earned cash than the Hero's Guide IV which contains new backgrounds such as Demon Scarred, Troll Blooded, and Dragonborn Angel of Superheroic Destiny.